ACTIVE -Z SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), DELHI, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the primary issue concerns the validity of the reopening due to a lack of proper approval from the prescribed authority under Section 151. The approval on record was examined.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2010-11 arises from reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 read with Section 143(3). A key issue raised is the validity of the reopening itself.
What were the issues?
The central legal issue is whether the reopening of assessment was validly conducted, specifically questioning the approval obtained from the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH `SMC, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Active-Z Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 206, Hans Bhawan, 1, Bahadurshah Ward-1(1), Zafar Magr, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACCA5053A Assessee by: Sh. Suresh Gupta, CA Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23.09.2025 ORDER
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11, arises against the CIT(A), Delhi-31’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1078466480(1) dated 14.07.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3). of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of the reopening itself for want of a valid approval by the learned prescribed authority u/s. 151 of the Act. The tribunal’s attention is invited to the approval dated 22.03.2017 (page 33 in paper book) wherein the learned prescribed authority had accepted the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal as “Yes, I am satisfied………”. This Active-Z Systems India Pvt. Ltd. being the clinching factual position emanating from the record, we hereby quote CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. (2023) 453 ITR 242 (SC) that such a mechanical approval vitiates the entire reopening; and therefore, we accept the instant legal ground in very terms. This reopening is quashed therefore.
All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026